Psychiatry, is it science?

it's an evil brainwashing cult with designs on world domination.

at least, that's what another evil brainwashing cult with designs on world domination has led me to believe :D
 
Yes and no.

For one thing, it is supposed to be an application of science, not a science itself. Like medicine, which applies the science of biology, psychiatry should apply the sciences of biology, psychology, neurology... And to a great extent, it does.

There are, though, pockets of pseudoscience, some substantial. Psychoanalysis and its offshoots are, arguably, unfalsifiable claptrap. But it would be a mistake to tar all of psychiatry with psychoanalysis's brush.
 
Yeah, I would say so. What branch of science DOESNT have woo woos?


For studying something as complicated as behavior and the brain I would say that they are doing a fantastic job. Its harder to put it into a box and say "x=y" so I think people have a difficult time accepting it as 'real' science. I love reading about the studies though...
 
andyandy said:
what is the relevance of the tags CM?
Click to expand...

The commas are required every three words when I write the tags how is this;

Search 'Psychiatry EXPOSED' on youtube. That's what promted me to ask the question.

Ty
CM

P.S. I see already variance from the usual strict adherence to 'science' that i am accustomed to here. I know people who have been helped by the new classes of drugs 'S.S.R.I. s and the like' and have used 'Zyban' myself.
Diazepam 'Valium' was overprescribed turned out to be extremely addictive and is out of style, it was a mistake.
Should more real science not be applied to the field?
Should not the field of psyciatry itself be held up to greater scrutiny (study using real science)?
Accountability and examination of results statistics by the A.M.A. F.D.A. and so on, is this needed?

ty CM
 
Probably not, psychiatry like a lot of medicine is mostly educated and informed guesses with an array of interventions devised by the science of the time.

If you look at the history of psychiatry it is based more upon science than it used to be, but still is not atomic physics.

But neither are many types of medicine.

The greatest woo comes in the area of 'talk therapy' usualy, although there are woo psyciatrists who believe in things like Freudian regression
 
Mercutio said:
Yes and no.

For one thing, it is supposed to be an application of science, not a science itself. Like medicine, which applies the science of biology, psychiatry should apply the sciences of biology, psychology, neurology... And to a great extent, it does.

There are, though, pockets of pseudoscience, some substantial. Psychoanalysis and its offshoots are, arguably, unfalsifiable claptrap. But it would be a mistake to tar all of psychiatry with psychoanalysis's brush.
Click to expand...


That sounds like denail to me, or repression, or some other equally unfalsifiable hypothesis of mine which is clearly the cause of your problems. Would you care for a cigar?
 
I would say that psychiatry itself is a science; however, I'd have to say that it's a science based on a currently incomplete understanding of the subject matter.

Additionally, it should be noted that psychiatry is one of the few sciences dealing with areas that are apparently non-physical and therefore not amenable to objective and exact measurements. This coupled with the additional issue of not being able to directly observe changes (mental changes are indirectly inferred from observation of behavioral changes) and you have an inexact science with lots of room for improvement.

Then again, that was true of virtually all sciences at one point or another, I suppose.
 
Canadian Malcontent said:
Is it or isnt it? that is the question.
Click to expand...

It is not a science.

My reason for saying so is that it has not been able to coalesce around a paradigm. There are many camps of people in psychology. Each makes considerable progress within their own niche. But there is not a global shared understanding of reality that marks the shared paradigms of the hard sciences. Without that, it is hard for an external observer to look at the subject and discern clear progress. See Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for more on this.

This is an objective statement, and can be proven in many ways. A fun instance of which is the inability of publishers, after carefully studying citation patterns, to identify core journals in psychology. Which is why the serial pricing crisis does not affect psychology. (I ran across this one in http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html .)

Again, this is not to say that lots of progress is not made. And that one psychologist cannot look at another and agree that they made progress. It is merely saying that deep divisions about what the best approaches are exist and persist.

Furthermore this is not a statement about the quality of people working in the subject. It has more to do with the subject matter than anything else. People are complex, and there are multiple ways to accomplish the same goal. As long as people using different approaches see success, it is hard to get consensus that it is good to focus on any single approach.

An amusing but simple example of how different methods can accomplish the same goal is the question of how to teach people to project their voice when they sing. It is possible to go through a lot of exercises about posture, opening your throat, etc to learn to project. (At at some point a serious singer needs to learn that.) But you can accomplish a lot of the same thing by telling someone to bend over, and sing while paying attention to how it feels in your forehead, right between the eyes. Then stand up, sing, and try to reproduce that feeling. The same sensation that is caused by blood in your head is also caused by vibration, and the continuous feedback helps people figure out the posture etc on their own!

Cheers,
Ben
 
Ben Tilly said:
It is not a science.

My reason for saying so is that it has not been able to coalesce around a paradigm. [...] See Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for more on this.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Given that Kuhn specifically accepts that preparadigmatic sciences are still sciences, that means you're applying a stricter standard than Kuhn himself.
 
drkitten said:
Interesting. Given that Kuhn specifically accepts that preparadigmatic sciences are still sciences, that means you're applying a stricter standard than Kuhn himself.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where he "specifically accepts that preparadigmatic sciences are still sciences". However in his book (which is packed away in a box or I'd say where to find it in the book) he makes the point that when an area of study has not coalesced around a paradigm, the result is not recognizably science.

And so it is with psychiatry. There is much activity and research. There are many with good intentions who think they are making progress. But the result, viewed from outside, is not recognizably science. There is no agreement on what results are important. There is no shared world view. For instance it is not possible to look at journals in psychiatry and get any consensus on which are important.

By contrast in the hard sciences you have all of those things. Let's look at how the shared worldview is reflected in the structure of the journals. The core journal for science is Nature. It is in many ways the pinnacle of the scientific world. Whether physicist, biologist or chemist, it doesn't matter. If you have a truly groundbreaking paper, you try to publish in Nature. After that you move down to journals that are more specific. For instance a biologist might try to publish in Journal of Cell Biology. And then it fans out until you get to the obscure journals that only small subspecialties will look at.

There is no such structure in psychiatry. Publishers have looked hard for it. Because it is worth a lot of money to them if they can figure it out. (They can charge more for access to core journals than obscure ones.) But there isn't one. Psychiatry simply has not achieved agreement on the most basic questions about what they are trying to accomplish. That lack of consensus is reflected in lack of agreement about what groups of people can be trusted to properly identify important research. Which in turn results in lack of agreement about which journals publish important research.

Cheers,
Ben
 
I like to split psychiatry into two realms: the CBT/talk therapy/psychotherapy branch and the medication branch.

As a whole, psychiatry is clearly based less on science than other fields of medicine, but thats NOT because the practioners are not interested in science. Its much harder to design good trials to test the CBT branch of psychiatry than it is to test placebo pills vs medication. Its much more prone to many different sources of bias. Furthermore, the brain is obviously the most complex organic entity that we know of, which makes studying it much harder than studying a pump design like the heart or a basic filter like the kidney.

If you look at the medication side of psychiatry, yes it is clearly based on science, however the evidence is much weaker than the evidence we have for medications involving other organ systems. Its common in RCTs involving other fields of medicine to find that a medication is 50% better than placebo.

In psych medications, that margin is MUCH smaller. Psychotropic drugs in general have much smaller benefits over placebo, maybe a 2% or a 5% benefit over placebo. However it IS statistically significant so it still counts as good science.

So overall i would agree that psychiatry has much less of a basis in science than other medical fields, but i would add to that its NOT because the practioners/doctors are less interested in science than other fields, its because of the inherent difficulty of studying such a complex system like the brain.
 
I dunno, I guess I was unduly influenced by the five-pound psychiatry textbook. Maybe it's just me, but I mean, hey, they gotta have SOMETHING in there, you know?

ETA: I just checked, and yep, there's something written on every page. Looks like it all makes sense too.
 
Schneibster said:
I dunno, I guess I was unduly influenced by the five-pound psychiatry textbook. Maybe it's just me, but I mean, hey, they gotta have SOMETHING in there, you know?

ETA: I just checked, and yep, there's something written on every page. Looks like it all makes sense too.
Click to expand...


Schneibster!!!

Something on every page that seems to make sense. What a summation!

But check it out. 'Chemical imbalances in the brain' are reffered to in the journals I am sure. Why? Because thats how the multitude of drugs that impact brain chemistry are marketed.
Kids tell each other how to get ritalin prescribed ( drug oriented kids).
I have some street knowledge of these matters.
The best rehab ( facility dedicated to recovery from addiction usually cocaine and opiate family) that I know of, again street knowledge not personal experience, in Ontario is in London Ont. and its approach is clean living ( hard work and excellent nutrition), tywelve steps and psycholgy and psychiatry delivered by people who have developed their tecnique in the field and are known and respected(trusted) by the recovery community. I do not know if they have a policy on psychiatric grugs but I would think that serotonin reuptake inhibitors are used by many of the clientel through their ongoing recovery. But I do not know. I do know that drugs are not the answer.
You take pills to get off street drugs and drink to get off the pills and then the drink leads you back to street drugs.
Drugs can help you, I am on polysporin right now for a slightly infected burn. I just restarted the Zyban thing today, it does SOMETHING that I find useful. I have a friend who told me about three drugs (psychiatric) she is on. Her doctor was telling her that she has to take Zooloft for another two years. She is a great lady, three great kids, nice hubby, teaches primary school, socially active in the community blah blah blah...
Maybe thats why she needs drugs , she is living everybody elses expectations? I dont know. I do know her beautiful children need a calm attentive loving momma and they have one. Its a good thing.

I do think that we should examine in great detail what different treatments/practices impact behaviour and that this should be done without funding from the purveyors of psychiatric drugs, hey maybe you Americans can just MAKE the drug companies study it you seem to be really effective at anything when the will is present.
Now I am talking through my hat.
wHERE WAS i?

Oh yeah!! I want you all to get behind my new product

********** ERIK'S PLACEBOS ************
^^^^^^^^^ CLINICALLY PROVEN TO RELIEVE SYMPTOMS^^^^^^^
##########LOW COST ALTERNATIVE#############
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But seriously, are we doing to much drugs?
I smoked some pot as a youth, then I started working fulltime and the two did not mesh for me.
Advil when i am hungover and contac C sometimes in the winter. And Zyban!!!! wish they had this when i was a kid!!!
And polysporin for minor wounds that are neglected.

ARE WE DOING TOO MUCH DRUGS????

would balanced nutrition and exercise reduce our need for drugs?
if so by how much?
Is it worth it? ( to bring it into the schools and such)


YF
CM

P.S. I said "the drink leads you back to street drugs" , what I have observed is that recovery from addiction is that successful treatment is accompanied by ongoing counseling , practising behaviour umm techniques/observations ( building a normal life and watching over it), twelve step principles application. Somehow pills are not a topic for discussion. Probably those who are on them wanna get off them so they keep it close.
 
Last edited:
Kuhn!!! Who is KUHN!!???

Put it this way . If I had been Hitler you would all be speaking German now!!!

Know what gets 'em off the dope and back home paying the bills and going to the school play and coming home to mamma?!!!???
Twelve steps thats what!!!
For coke and narcotics you need behaviour therapy as well, for booze the 12 steps can do it all alone!!!!
So it seems the 'talk therapy' , I mean the real stuff, you know its real cuz its FREE! ( somebody actually giving a rats ass about your pathetic existence without collecting somewhere) yeah talking about your heartfelt stuff is the oinly way to BALANCE your heartfelt stuff. No you dont need a doctor just a friend ( someone who gives a rats ass...). They dont have to understand ( its much better if they do) they just have to care and accept you.
There you have it !! Find a wino, spill the beans and you are CURED!!!
The key thing there is you have to tell the whole truth!!! Who can do that? Can you!??
Talk therapy as PAID FOR MEDICINE!!???? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
So the longer you need to talk the more money I make? I LOVE IT!!
TRUTH!!
Thats what heals you. Why do they talk forever in 'talktherapy' the doc makes cash and the patient avoids the truth. Its that simple.
SPIT IT OUT!!! tell the freaking truth for once in your pathetic life As++OLE!!!
THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE

Wanna cigar? Anything else you want? Huh? ANYTHING!?

P.S. With the white powders they need a paid proffesional, someone who went to school and learned and has applied themself to the field of recovery as well as 12 steps. My rant above was.... well largely a rant,.. but contains my feelings.
 
Last edited:
Canadian Malcontent said:
Is it or isnt it? that is the question.
Click to expand...

Isn't.

Psychiatry is a technology. It's a field of medicine. Medicine is a technology.

There is a trend in medicine toward what's called "evidence based medicine" - and psychiatry is an equal participant.

Nobody's ever done a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study on the benefits of stopping bleeding when somebody's stabbed - we're all going on tradition with that one. But it doesn't make it quackery. It just makes it medicine.

Also: don't confuse psychiatry with psychology.
 
Blutoski,
Not confusing, just that my experience talking to people is 'guy who helps with your perspective' could be a wino for all I care , whats important is the job gets done. I see what i havent been seeing and continue to see it.

'Depression' is lack of perspective. There is no two ways about that fact!

Denial of one's truth is depression. Its a simple progression that we all have in common.
The sympton.
The guilt and shame.
The fear.
The denial.

Here is some psychiatry applicable to all.
Your parents hurt you, passed on their weaknesses to you.
You resent that. You want to be free from their(your parents) pain and weakness.
You find you cant break away. You wonder why. The answer is simple. The patterns of your parents were passed unto you as a babe. Its part of you.
All you can do is accept it and move on working with what you have.
You can forgive your parents. As you can forgive everyone who ever hurt you.
You can ask forgiveness of all those you have hurt.
If you do those things , forgiving and asking forgiveness you will get a lot of emotional balance.
Another thing yopu can do is confess. To someone fit to take it ( who gives a rats ...). Tell All YOUR CRIMES. To someone.
These exercises will result in new perspective. Then what? Well thats where counselling comes in. You have no clue how to live with your knowledge , how to be normal. Get a counsellor who can help keep you on track and guide you through this 'normalcy' that is foreign to you.
If you can begin to forgive and ask and 'fess up to someone your crimes then you have come a long way baby. But go one step more, try to build a functional life.
Whats functional? Paying taxes? Uh unhh! Thats just one component.
Functional is working, doing duty and playing ( getting joy for joys sake).
All of those on a regular basis and for me playing is the most important.
Those functional things involve contact with and relating to other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom